In the winter of 588 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem. His armies encircled the city, erected siege walls, and severed every route of supply. For eighteen months, no food, no commerce, and no relief entered the walls. The famine that followed broke not only the city’s defenses but its humanity. The Book of Lamentations, written by a witness to the destruction, preserves what remains one of the most harrowing accounts of siege warfare in the ancient record: “The hands of compassionate women cooked their own children; they became their food when my people were destroyed.”  That is what siege does. It does not kill with swords. It kills with time. Patience erodes. Options narrow. Decisions become emotional, desperate, reckless. The psychology of siege has not changed in twenty-six centuries. What has changed is the arsenal available when desperate leaders run out of options. Nine nuclear powers. Over 12,000 warheads, down from a Cold War peak of roughly 70,000, but more than enough to end civilization as we know it.

We have seen this pattern before, in modern history, with devastating consequences.

By the late 1930s, Imperial Japan had embarked on a campaign of territorial expansion across East Asia. Its military occupied Manchuria, waged a full-scale war in China, formed a military alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and moved into French Indochina to strangle supply routes reaching its adversaries. The United States, which had been tightening economic restrictions incrementally, responded decisively on July 26, 1941: President Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets and imposed a total embargo on oil exports. The effect was immediate and existential. Japan, which imported 80 percent of its petroleum from the United States, lost access to the resource that sustained its military and its empire in a single stroke.  The Imperial Japanese Navy calculated that its fuel reserves would be exhausted within eighteen months.  Diplomatic cables intercepted in the months that followed revealed what one historian described as “an atmosphere of desperation” within the Japanese leadership. Tokyo confronted a stark choice: accept Washington’s demands, withdraw from its conquered territories, and suffer an intolerable loss of prestige, or seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies by force and accept the inevitability of war with the most powerful industrial nation on Earth. Japan chose war. On the morning of December 7, 1941, 353 aircraft launched from six carriers struck the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, killing 2,403 Americans and drawing the United States into the Second World War.

Four years of grinding conflict followed. By the summer of 1945, Japan’s cities lay in ruins from sustained firebombing campaigns, its navy had been destroyed, and its empire had collapsed. Yet its military leadership refused to surrender. American war planners estimated that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland, designated Operation Downfall, would cost between 500,000 and one million US casualties, based on the fierce resistance encountered at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, where Japanese soldiers overwhelmingly chose death over capitulation. President Truman, unwilling to accept those losses, authorized the use of a weapon that had never been deployed in war. On August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber released an atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb fell on Nagasaki. The combined death toll exceeded 200,000. Japan surrendered on August 15.

The parallels with 2026 are uncomfortable. In 1941, the United States cut off oil to Japan. In 2026, Iran cut off oil to the world. In both cases, a regime that refused to yield weaponized an economic chokepoint until the pressure became unbearable. In both cases, negotiations failed because the core demands were irreconcilable. And in both cases, the party with the larger arsenal faced the same agonizing question: how far are we willing to go?

The question this analysis asks is whether the current trajectory could lead toward a nuclear scenario, and why the question, however uncomfortable, can no longer be avoided.

The Islamabad talks have collapsed. After 21 hours of face-to-face negotiations, the highest-level engagement between the US and Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Vice President Vance announced on April 12 that no agreement was reached. “They have chosen not to accept our terms,” he said. The sticking point was, as predicted, nuclear: Iran refused to........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)